en. Others refer the name to the Hebrew word, (see illustration 1.) which the Jews applied to those who were separated to God as Nazarites. But though he was separated to God, in the highest possible sense, our Saviour certainly was not such a Nazarite, as either Samuel, Sampson, or John. But that the followers of Jesus, in the days of the Apostles, were in contempt and reproach called the sect of the Nazarenes, we have the best testimony. (Acts xxiv. 5.) After they had taken the name of christians, the opprobrious appellation was given to those, who, retaining the doctrines and ceremonies of the old testament, differed from other Jews in this only, that they professed to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

See Hammond and Whitby on the text.

Beausobre and L'En

fant's Introduction, p. 270. Jenning's Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 425, 426, 427.

13.

Luke ii. 42. "When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast."

I do not find that the age is prescribed in the Mosaic law, at which parents were required to bring their children to the pass over. When they were twelve years of age, however, the Jews thought themselves bound to earry them to the feast; and it was in compliance with this custom that our Lord, at that age, accompanied his parents to Jerusalem. The law provided for the instruction of children, concerning the institution and purpose of the ordinance; (Exod.

xii. 25, 26, 27.) and when they were brought to it, the oldest person at the table addressed them upon the subject, always reciting carefully the expressions, it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.

The Jews had three great anniversary feasts. 1. The Passover. 2. The feast of Pentacost. 3. The feast of Tabernacles, At each of these, all the males were to appear before the Lord, at the national altar; and the object of this union was, partly to strengthen their attachment to one another; partly that, as one church, they might worship together; and likewise to secure them against the influence of the customs of their idolatrous neighbours. Of the institution of the passover, we have an account in the twelfth chapter of Exodus. The name is derived from the fact, that the destroying angel passed over the houses of the Israelites, when he slew the first born of all the Egyptians.

A reference to a few of the customs, against which it was necessary to guard this people, so prone to adopt the manners and the worship of the nations around them, will be sufficient to shew us the propriety, and the importance of this institution. But concerning this, and other peculiarities of the Old Testament, much, without doubt, was known at the time of their appointment, which is irrecovera bly lost; but which, if known, would enlarge our views, and confirm our convictions, of their, great utility.

But it is proper to premise, that the passover was celebrated "at evening, on the fourteenth day of the first month." (Lev. xxiii. 5.) The Jews had a civil, and an ecclesiastical year. The civil year began in the month Tisri, which answers to our September and October; the ecclesiastical, in the month Nisan, which agrees to our March and April. The passover was kept in March; and it was expressly enjoined, that the whole of the lamb, except the blood which was poured at the foot of the altar, should be either eaten, or destroyed. The feast continued seven days, on each of which, sacrifices peculiar to this festival were offered. The days which succeeded the first evening, were called the feast of unleavened bread; no other bread being allowed, during the seven days, to be found in their houses. Upon the morning of the first day of the passover, the master of the family threw a piece of bread into the fire, to give no tice that the days of unleavened bread had begun.

1. The paschal lamb was required to be a male, probably in opposition to the customs of idolatrous Gentiles, who considered sacrifices of the female kind, as the most valuable, and the most acceptable to their gods. It is also said, that a male lamb was commanded to be killed and eaten with so much solemnity, about the time of the vernal equinox, in opposition to the idolatry of the Egyptians, who, at the season of the sun's entering the sign Aries, paid solemn worship to the creature, by whose name

that sign was distinguished. Rabbi Abraham Seba says, that this feast of the Egyptians being at its height on the 14th day of the month Nisan, God ordered the killing and eating of a lamb at that time, as a sensible evidence, that he could not be a God, whom the Israelites could eat.

2. A similar reason we find for the prohibition, "eat it not raw, but roast with fire." (Ex. xii. 9.) The Syriac version renders the clause, "eat it not raw; eat it not, while it is alive." The Egyptians never roasted any of their meats, which they offered to their gods; but if fire were used, it was to boil them. It is said also to have been a custom of the heathens, in their feasts of Bacchus, which, according to Herodotus and Plutarch, had their origin in Egypt, to tear and to eat the raw flesh of the victims which they offered.

3. It was required that, if any of the paschal lamb should be left, it should be burned. The law extended to all sacrifices, except to those which were voluntary, which might be retained to the next day. But the Pagans often kept what remained of the flesh of their victims, which they carried to their houses, and from which they believed that they should derive most important advantages.

4. It was forbidden that a bone of the paschal lamb should be broken. But they who celebrated the feasts of Bacchus, not only ate the raw flesh of their victims, but tore and broke their limbs to pieces.

It was on the first evening of

this feast, that our Lord afterwards instituted the ordinance of the supper; and as not only the festival itself, but the lamb which was sacrificed, was called the passover, so Christ, our passover, we are told, was sacrificed for us. The points of resemblance between these ordinances, have of ten been stated; and these, for the present at least, we leave to the judgments of our readers, without adding any remarks of our own. But a few circumstances, not perhaps so generally known, will not, in this number of our illustrations, be unappropriate.

When a family was not large enough to eat the whole of a lamb, the master of the house invited whom he pleased to join with him in partaking of it. These assemblies were called brotherhoods, and the guests companions or friends. How cutting then was the reproof of our Lord to Judas, FRIEND, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss! the traitor having committed this greatest of crimes, so soon after having eaten the passover with him?

The guests leaned on their left arms, upon beds, round a table, on which was set the lamb, with bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and a dish full of a kind of sauce, in which they dipped the bread and herbs. This was probably the dish, into which Judas dipped with our Lord. The pictures, which we have of the last supper, and some which are otherwise very interesting, are erroneous in the postures which they give to our Saviour and his apostles.When the guests were thus reclining about the table, the master of the family, or some one,

who represented him, took a cup of wine, mixed with water; and after he had given thanks to God, drank it; and then gave a cup to each of those also, who were with him. In the paschal supper, this presentation of the cup was repeated four times. When the second was given, they began to sing; and six psalms were sung before they separated from the supper. From the testimony of Luke, (chap. xxii. 17-20.) I think it is very obvious, that our Lord gave the cup twice to his apostles; and, as Mark says, that "when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of alives," it is probable that only one hymn, or psalm, instead of psalms, was sung, before they went out.— When wine was first used on the evening of eating the paschal lamb, or why, I know not; but the fact that it was then drank, accounts for our Lord's choice of it, as an emblem of his blood, which was to be shed for the remission of sins. But one humble, penitent, and grateful observance of the institution, will give far more satisfaction to a good mind, because it will be far more conducive to holiness of affections and conduct, than the minutest knowledge of those circumstances of the ordinance, which the sacred writers have omitted, and of which they have therefore deemed it unimportant to inform

us.

As the Lord's supper was instituted on the evening of the passover, unleavened bread must have been used in it, as there was then probably no other in the city. The Latin church therefore thought itself bound, in the

down with their fellow christians, and giving a public proof of their affection and reverence for their Master and Lord. This refusal is grounded, not on any charge of insincerity in their professions, or hypocrisy in their practice; but simply on this, they cannot give their assent to all the articles of the creeds, which are made the conditions of communion.

We suppose this general position will be assented to by all, that the members of a church are authorized to require of those, who desire admission to their body, all that appears to have been required in the scriptures, and nothing more. It is clear, that private and uninspired christians have no right to make new conditions of admission to this ordinance, which Christ, the great head of the church, the author and finisher of our faith, has not seen fit to require. What then are the scripture terms of communion?-As our Saviour instituted this rite for the benefit of his disciples, we are safe in saying, that none but his disciples have a right to be partakers; and that all, who are his disciples, have a right to partake. We have then only to inquire, who are considered as disciples of Christ in the scriptures? The answer is-all who credibly profess to be disciples, or, to use the very words of scripture-all who profess to believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God.*

We read Rom. x. 9.-"That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Here we find, that belief in the single fact

It might seem to be desirable that those only who are really disciples should be communicants; but as man cannot read the heart of his fellow men, it is impossible to require more than a credible profession, leaving it to God, the Judge of the heart, to determine its sincerity. Now we have no evidence from the scriptures, that any more was required as the test of the credibility of such a profession, than a life corresponding to this belief. The only safe and universal principle of judging of the sincerity of any man's profession, on any subject, is the consistency of his practice with his profession. "By their fruits shall ye know them," i is the criterion, which is given us by an unerring Teacher.

The scriptures then appear to give us no right to inquire into the accuracy and soundness of of the particular views, which an individual may hold, as preliminary to christian communion with him. We are bound to acknowledge him a fellow christian as soon as we are satisfied that he

of the resurrection of our Lord, is, in the judgment of the apostle, enough to make a man a christian. The in the gospel to be believed, but that reason is, not that there is nothing else he, who believes this, believes a truth, which will lead him to inquire and search for all other gospel truth. To believe either, that "Christ is the Messiah,' or, that 'God has raised him from the dead,' implies a belief, that he was sent from God, that his teachings, as far as we do know them or may know them, are to be received as the words of God, The same rectitude of disposition, which has led a man to believe so much as this, will lead him to inquire for more; for "the whole counsel of God."